Bible IS SCIENCE, exposing misnamed 'science' today

[Subduction Zone]

I see so you have no arguments, so you attack the phrasing of the questions. There's no animosity here just think for yourself, I'm not even saying believe me just look into it.

No, you demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of that you are arguing against.

 

[Speedwell]

It claims that through sexual advantage and survival of the fittest all life came from single cell organisms. Lightning striking primordial soup jump started the creation of life. Gradual adaptation through generations, therefore their has to be missing links. Animals with partially developed features like eyes, fins, claws, teeth what have you would be not only found but common. So genetic material + time = species according to evolution therefore how long until my christmas tree breaks down and becomes a dog?

The theory of evolution says never. But it is obvious that you don't care what the theory of evolution actually says.

 

[Firewatchduty]

I linked articles, it's not my understanding. It's science's understanding I just pointed out the obvious. Like i said you have no argument just nitpicking.

 

[Firewatchduty]

The theory of evolution says never. But it is obvious that you don't care what the theory of evolution actually says.

Science is proving or disproving theories, it's a theory not fact. It's not natural law. It's the current guess and it's provably inaccurate.

 

[Tone]

I am constantly amazed when the religious bash their own beliefs by inappropriately using the term "religion".

What is religion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I linked articles, it's not my understanding. It's science's understanding I just pointed out the obvious. Like i said you have no argument just nitpicking.

No, you cherry picked articles that you did not understand. Why not try to learn? Eye evolution is well understood. It is not that hard to understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is religion?

Religion is a faith based belief. Faith is not allowed in the sciences. One has to be able to support one's claims with evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Science is proving or disproving theories, it's a theory not fact. It's not natural law. It's the current guess and it's provably inaccurate.

That is not correct. Theories are never "proven". And theories explain facts. The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution just as the theory of gravity explains the fact of gravity.

 

[Tone]

Religion is a faith based belief. Faith is not allowed in the sciences. One has to be able to support one's claims with evidence.

Wrong, I didn't say to present your edifice of religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wrong, I didn't say to present your edifice of religion.

Please, making false claims about others is not correct behavior for a Christian to take. I do not have a religion.

Once again, a religion, such as what you have, is a faith based belief. Science does not allow faith. One has to have evidence for one's claims.

Why do you insult your own beliefs?

 

[Firewatchduty]

No, you cherry picked articles that you did not understand. Why not try to learn? Eye evolution is well understood. It is not that hard to understand.

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia
The rate of eye evolution is difficult to estimate, because the fossil record, particularly of the lower Cambrian, is poor. How fast a circular patch of photoreceptor cells evolve into a fully functional vertebrate eye has been estimated based on rates of mutation, relative advantage to the organism, and natural selection.

yes well understood, even Darwin was making guesses.

 

[Tone]

Please, making false claims about others is not correct behavior for a Christian to take. I do not have a religion.

Once again, a religion, such as what you have, is a faith based belief. Science does not allow faith. One has to have evidence for one's claims.

Why do you insult your own beliefs?

Why do you assume my beliefs and impose your own beliefs upon me?

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia
The rate of eye evolution is difficult to estimate, because the fossil record, particularly of the lower Cambrian, is poor. How fast a circular patch of photoreceptor cells evolve into a fully functional vertebrate eye has been estimated based on rates of mutation, relative advantage to the organism, and natural selection.

yes well understood, even Darwin was making guesses.

No, not guesses. And Darwin knew very little of the evolution of the eye. You are focusing on the inconsequential. You can't refute an idea that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you assume by beliefs and impose your own beliefs upon me?

I have yet to see a Christian with anything more than a faith based belief. You could always amaze the world with a rational reason to believe the Christian story, but no one has done so yet.

 

[Tone]

I have yet to see a Christian with anything more than a faith based belief. You could always amaze the world with a rational reason to believe the Christian story, but no one has done so yet.

Look at everything you see...and you have that.

 

[Smithi]

Why do you assume by beliefs and impose your own beliefs upon me?

He isn't imposing anything. You are the one posting about your religious beliefs in the Physical & Life Sciences thread. If you have anything scientific to add, then let's hear it. If you dismiss science, then what are you doing in here?

 

[Strathos]

Treating the Bible like a scientific treatise is completely missing the point, and is quite insulting to Scripture.

 

[dad]

Yes, a bunch of ancient middle eastern numerologists and nomads "explained" things as ancient middle eastern numerologists and nomads could understand them at the time - a time before microscopes, knowledge of DNA, etc.

I think you mean in a time before man knew about those things. The Author of the bible knew that and a lot more. On the point of DNA, though I question whether modern DNA even existed as we know it today in those pre flood years. Who knows? Living 1000 years seems like a possible clue something was different.

They at least had an excuse for compiling a bunch of silly myths and just-so stories that complied with their particular deity's claimed attributes,

Jer 20:9 -Then I said, I will not make mention of him, nor speak any more in his name. But his word was inmine heart as a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I was weary with forbearing, and I could not stay.

Can't cork that kind of power.

but to think the silly, naive stories in the bible "explain" any of the things you claim is simply nonsense and fever-dreams from the under-informed.

To think the silly, naive stories in so called science "explain" any of the things about origins or the future, you claim is simply nonsense and fever-dreams from the under-informed, and zealously ignorant.

 

[Smithi]

I have yet to see a Christian with anything more than a faith based belief. You could always amaze the world with a rational reason to believe the Christian story, but no one has done so yet.

Oh, I don't know. Probably the most scientifically proficient poster in this section is sjastro, who professes to be a Christian. I have no idea of the depth of his or her beliefs, or the rationale for them, and it is none of my business. I've met some people during my scientific studies who profess to be Christian only in the sense that they believe Jesus Christ existed (I don't), and that his teachings are worthy of following. Nothing about being the son of God, or resurrection stuff.

 

[Smithi]

On the point of DNA, though I question whether modern DNA even existed as we know it today in those pre flood years. Who knows?

We know. It is called ancient human DNA. Of course it all depends on when you date this mythical flood to. If it is after ~ 45 000 years BP, then you are wrong.

https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/...mns/topLeftColumn/pdf/514413a.pdf?origin=ppub